On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:46:31AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:58:34PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Stefano, actually I agree with its good intention. What I actually
think is that we are kidding ourselves, because we already see whats
needed, but don't
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:15:00AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal?
I'd be quite worried about the blocking potential of such a move,
actually. One of the reasons that Debian scales so well is that *most*
of the work we do day-to-day does not depend on
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:42:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, some time back I wrote some patches for coreutils. Unfortunately
they are not yet integrated, but thats not the fault of the maintainer.
However I think it could help if the project decides that this is a good
idea
hint :-)) ]
As already stated elsewhere I'm surely opening that topic somewhere
with a broader audience, but its a good topic for me to see which
opinions the DPL candidates act for.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Some of these packages are very well maintained
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:25:11AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:42:11AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:19:27PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Dear Stefano, Steve and Luk,
Hi again Charles!
I like a lot Stefano's statement about collaborative maintainance:
Collaborative maintenance should not be
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
PROPOSAL START
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote:
On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as
title, especially the
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
What do you think about such a proposal?
Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal,
instead of proposing it to the developers
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority
requirements.
(...)
So, yes, that does require interpretation.
Actually I said it does
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian
packagers)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If that is the case, why would anyone propose changing a foundation
document, and risk failing to meet the 3:1 requirement, when they could
simply declare that they interpret it to say what they would like it to
say, and have
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ).
I wouldn't say that it is that easy.
It
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
* Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What
changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very
ident=schoenfeld)
by imr-mail.intra.in-medias-res.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id 1L9ami-000506-VA
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:44:05 +0100
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:44:04 +0100
From: Patrick Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
I'm hereby proposing the following general
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:29:30PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
For example, if you want to install Debian on an NSLU, the only difficulty is
finding the unofficial D-I images that include non-free firmware. And even
that can be improved. They could be linked from the main website, and
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:14:10PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
| Firmware is data that is uploaded to hardware components, not designed to be
| run on the host
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution,
so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option.
I hereby propose this alternate
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 05:13:22PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.25.0310 +0200]:
The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers,
decides:
The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
21 matches
Mail list logo
